The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-12-05

IL will be seen that for twenty years sue
ceeding 1860 the Republican vote showed
an uninterrupted growth. This growth
was naturally less in 1864, because OF the
war, than in 1865, and was again less in
| 1872 than in 1868, because, after the Octo-
Der elections OF the former year had in
sured Greeley's overwhelming defeat, the
Republicans were under no necessity of
polling full vote in November But aside
from the two exceptional contests Of 1864
and 1872, tits obvious that the Republican
vote in these five States was increasing ut
the rate OF more than 100000 every four
years, the growth from 1872 TO 1876 being
l07, ISL, aud from 1876 TO 1880, $50, T07.
Each State showed a remarkable steadi-
ness in growth. New York increased her
Republican vote from 1872 TO 1876 by 49,
400, and from 1870 20 1880 by CO, 337; In
diana, by II, S6i In the first period and
-, 1853 in the second; New jersey, by H.
SCI and l7,03S; Connecticut, 10y 1896 and
S,037, and Massachusetts,, by 1851 and
10, li2.
Beginning with tho campaign which re-
suited in Lincoln's election, down 10 and
including that in which Garfield WIS the
successful nominee, the Republican party
had appealed 10 the country with honest
candidates, upon platform OF sound prin.
ciplcs. and had sought success by attract
ing the support OF the most intelligent and
conscientious voters. The result was n
steady and rapid growth in its numbers,
averaging from 10 10 10 per cent. every
four years in States like those we have
cited, where a large proportion Of the yot-
ems are not held fast by party bonds. II
the campaign Of 1884 had been made upon
the same basis ~ previous ones, the Re-
publican vote ought 10 have shown
marked gain in each Of these States, and
aggregated at least 10000
But n new policy was adopted. A tainted
candidate was selected, who, il was known
and conceded. would u'pel many old yo,en
who had supported lincoln, Grant, Hayes
and Garfield, ~ we'll rs many Young voters
whose education and environment inclined
them 10 support Republican nominee OF
the old type; but who, IL was claimed,
could poll vast number Oi votes drawn
from the most ignorant and fantastic ele-
mcnts OF the Democratic party. lilo
did draw those votes. Ilis friends
assert, and his opponents do not question,
that lac received 10000 Irish Democratic
votes In New York city, and many thou.
sands more In Brooklyn and other large
cities Of this state, not 10 speak of many
thousands more in New jersey, Connect.
cut. Massachusetts, and Indiana. But
where did the gain Of these tens OF thou.
sands OF Democratic votes, which Garfield
had not secured, put Blainc2 In New
York State Garfield had rolled "a. gJ7
votes more than Hayes, and secured
2l,OJ3 plurality; Blaine polled only
6,l57 more than Garfield, and
was beaten by i,0i7 plurality. In
Indiana Garfield had pollcd 1853 votes
more than Hayes, and secured d, $40 plu-
mlity; Blaine polled only $500 moro than
Garfield. aud was beaten by6 ,627 plurality.
In New Jersey Garfield had polled II, Ois
votes morc than Hayes, and reduced the
Democratic plurality 10 only 900; Blaine
pollcd only 2,Sil more than Garfield. and
allowed the Democratic plurality 90 rise
Ia 4.il2. In Connecticut Garfield had
pollcd S,O37 votes morc than Hayes, and
secured 2,Bj6 plurality; blaine reduced
the Republican .o,c from G7,O7l 10 Gj.g23,
aud was beaten by ,216 plurality. In Mas.
sachusctis Garfield had pollcd u, lie votes
more than Hayes, and secured b3,2l5 plu.
mlity, with a clear majority over NIL of
| IS, slS. blaine rctused the Republican
vote from l65. eos ID 146, I2i, and had only
2i,312 plurality, while lac fell p,g3l
short Of any majority nj all. Thus, In
three Of the five States, Blaine had gained
only trifc over q sriSld, and Ia the other
two had actully lost, 80 that the aggregate
Republican vote IN them, which normal
growth should have carried mp 10 NJ least
| 4. 9iO.OOO In 1884, ws only i,i3g. AZ,
against lao, 5Sa in 1880. Such figures A.
thcsc draw their own moral